3. God dealing with them in the way of a covenant, whereunto the mutual consent of all parties covenanting is required, it was
“proposed unto them for their acceptance, and they did accordingly
willingly receive it, Exod. xxiv., Deut. v.; so as that they had not whereof to complain.
4, In that state of discipline wherein God “was pleased to hold them, they enjoyed the way of life and salvation in the promise; for, as we have showed at large, the promise was not disannulled by the introduction of this covenant. Wherefore, although God re- served a better and more complete state for the church under the new testament, having “ordained better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect;” yet was that other state in itself good and holy, and sufficient to bring all believers unto the enjoyment of God.
Obs. XI. The state of the gospel, or of the church under the new testament, being accompanied with the highest spiritual privileges and advantages that it is capable of in this world, two things do thence follow :—
1, The great obligation that is on all believers unto holiness and fruitfulness in obedience, unto the glory of God. We have herein the utmost condescension of divine grace, and the greatest effects of
‘
100 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. VIII.
it that God will communicate on this side glory. That which all these things tend unto, that which God requireth and expecteth upon them, is the thankful and fruitful obedience of them that are made partakers of them. And they who are not sensible of this obligation are strangers unto the things themselves, and are not able to discern spiritual things, because they are to be spiritually discerned,
2. The heinousness of their sin by whom this covenant is neglected or despised is hence abundantly manifest. This the apostle parti- cularly asserts and insists upon, Heb. i. 2, 3, x. 28, 29.
VERSE 7. Ei yap 7 wparn éxeivn jv &wemmros, odn av Oevrépag eCnreiro roms.
For if that first [covenant] had been blameless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
In this verse, and so also in those that follow unto the end of this chapter, the apostle designeth a confirmation of what he had before asserted and undertaken to prove. And this was, that there is a necessity of a new and better covenant, accompanied with better promises and more excellent ordinances of worship than the former, Hereon it follows that the first was to be disannulled and abolished ; which was the main thesis he had to prove. And there are two parts of his argument to this purpose. For first he proveth, that on the supposition of another and better covenant to be introduced, it did unavoidably follow that the first was to be abolished, as that which was not perfect, complete, or sufficient unto its end; which he doth in this verse. Secondly, he proves that such a new, better covenant was to be introduced, in the verses following.
What he had before confirmed in sundry particular instances, he summarily concludes in one general argument in this verse, and that built on a principle generally acknowledged. And it is this, ‘ All the privileges, all the benefits and advantages of the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, do all belong unto the covenant whereunto they were annexed, a chief part of whose outward administrations consisted in them.’ This the Hebrews neither could nor did question. The whole of what they pleaded for, the only charter and tenure of — all their privileges, was the covenant that God made with their fathers at Sinai. Wherefore that priesthood, those sacrifices, with all the worship belonging unto the tabernacle or temple, were ne- cessarily commensurate unto that covenant. Whilst that covenant continued, they were to continue; and if that covenant ceased, they were to cease also. These things were agreed between the apostle and them.
VER. 7.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 101
Hereon he subsumes, ‘ But there is mention of another covenant to be made with the whole church, and to be introduced long after the making of that at Sinai.’ Neither could this be denied by them. However, to put it out of controversy, the apostle proves it by an express testimony of the prophet Jeremiah. In that testimony it is peculiarly declared, that this new covenant, that was promised to be introduced “in the latter days,” should be better and more excellent than the former, as is manifest from the promises whereon it is established; yet in this verse the apostle proceeds no further but unto the general consideration of God’s promising to make another covenant with the church, and what would follow thereon.
From this supposition the apostle proves that the first covenant is imperfect, blamable, and removable. And the force of his in- ference depends on a common notion or presumption, that is clear and evident in its own light. And it is this, when once a covenant is made and established, if it will serve unto and effect all that he _ who makes it doth design, and exhibit all the good which he intends to communicate, there is no reason why another covenant should be made. The making of a new for no other ends or purposes but what the old was every way sufficient for, argues, lightness and mutability in him that made it. Unto this purpose doth he argue, Gal. iii. 21, “ If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Could the first covenant have perfected and consecrated the church, could it have communicated all the grace and mercy that God intended to indulge unto the children of men, the wise and holy author of it would have had no thought about the introduction and establish- ment of another. It would have been no way agreeable unto his infinite wisdom and faithfulness so to do. Wherefore the promise hereof doth irrefragably prove, that both the first covenant and all the services of it wére imperfect, and therefore to be removed and _ taken away.